Article from The New York Times: “How U.S. Textbooks Helped Instill White Supremacy”
As we examine article headlines, to me it seems that the author’s language, rhetorical strategies, etc. can be effective by leaving a subconscious impression on the reader. An article’s title may play an important role in subtly tinting the lens through which the rest of the article’s content is absorbed. Perhaps, then, I would argue that the most effective article authors may be the ones that use language, rhetorical strategies, and power in both their headlines and actual writing in a subtle manner that pushes the consumer in the author’s preferred direction without necessarily triggering their conscious awareness of such, thus avoiding any over-compensatory, retaliatory defensiveness or resistance that may come from a more direct opinion or attack on an idea.
This specific article serves to share some of the claims and evidence of another author’s book on the topic: TEACHING WHITE SUPREMACY: America’s Democratic Ordeal and the Forging of Our National Identity.
There are a few specific things in this article that stood out to me. First of all, I find myself somewhat disappointed in the headline. I find that the world choice of “helped instill” feels very mild and doesn’t seem to sell the importance of the issue as effectively as the book’s title which utilizes heavy, impactful words like “ordeal” and “forging” which are able to establish a greater sense of importance and power regarding this topic. With regards to the content of the article, it appears to make its point by almost serving as just a book review. This does offer advantages in manners such as appeal to ethos as it allows the author to pull on concrete examples that the book offers. The author also includes criticism of the book, illustrating that the position she argues from may be multifaceted or evolving as a conflict of opinions exists even within the same side of the discourse group.
Overall, I was caught off guard and left more confused than I expected by this article. I did not expect it to become more of a book review than an original presentation of ideas by the author. The headline did not offer any clues that this would be the format of the article, and I would argue that it is almost misleading or inappropriate because I do not feel that the article focused enough on the process through which, or the “how”, textbooks perpetuated white supremacy as the headline led me to expect. Instead, it just seemed to list off some examples and analyze how the book’s author presented this information. As a result, to me the article didn’t exactly express an engaging or informative perspective or argument on the topic. I think that this means that any intention on the author’s part to bring awareness to this concept and inspire support would primarily only resonate with or capture the attention of a “discourse group” containing people who at baseline have a particular interest or investment in education systems.